I focus on the strategic, economic and business implications of defense spending as the Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive Officer of Source Associates. Prior to holding my present positions, I was Deputy Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University and taught graduate-level courses in strategy, technology and media affairs at Georgetown. I have also taught at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. I hold doctoral and masters degrees in government from Georgetown University and a bachelor of science degree in political science from Northeastern University. Disclosure: The Lexington Institute receives funding from many of the nation’s leading defense contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and United Technologies.

New Pentagon Strategy A Good Fit For Ukraine Crisis

In the week since Russian leader Vladimir Putin began making military moves in Ukraine’s Crimean region, President Obama has been heavily criticized by Republicans on Capitol Hill. The critics claim that Obama has encouraged aggression by showing weakness in previous crises, that he has cut military spending too much, that he has pursued a feckless foreign policy, and that he has no strategy. Some of these complaints may have a grain of truth at their core, but the charge that the administration has no strategy is completely wrong. In fact, the Pentagon just rolled out the latest iteration of its global military strategy this week, refining security concepts under development since early in the President’s first term.

The military strategy and security posture that supports it are contained in a congressionally-mandated document called the Quadrennial Defense Review, and on Wednesday I joined several other defense analysts at the Pentagon to discuss it with Deputy Under Secretary Christine Wormuth — President Obama’s choice to be the Defense Department’s next policy chief. Wormuth played a central role in shepherding the new strategy through the interagency coordination process to its final form. Listening to her and reading the 60-page document, it became clear the administration not only has a detailed strategy for coping with emerging security challenges, but that strategy is a remarkably good fit for the recent crisis in Ukraine.

This man is not your friend. (Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_State_University)

What follows is my take on how the Obama strategy plugs into the Ukraine crisis. Although Secretary Wormuth did not make explicit in our meeting most of the connections that I will lay out here, you’d have to be pretty dense to think the administration had no strategic concepts for dealing with the Ukraine crisis after perusing what her office has been refining for the last year. Bear in mind this commentary is based just on the public part of military plans that include literally thousands of pages of secret annexes addressing specific regions and scenarios.

Nuclear deterrence. The most important military fact about current tensions between Russia and America is that both countries have large nuclear arsenals. That would also be the most important consideration in any confrontation with China or North Korea. Just to make sure U.S. leaders didn’t lose sight of that fact, Russia went forward with a previously-scheduled test of an intercontinental ballistic missile on the same day the new strategy was released — a test that easily could have been delayed. However, the Pentagon’s strategy anticipates the danger of local tensions between nuclear powers getting out of control by committing to the preservation of a diverse, resilient atomic arsenal, presciently observing that such weapons will help convince adversaries “they cannot escalate their way out of failed conventional aggression against the United States or our allies and partners.”

European security. Although the Obama strategy is often described as a “pivot to the Pacific” in which other regions will play diminished roles, in fact it gives considerable attention to assuring the security of Africa, Europe and the Middle East. With regard to Europe, it notes that NATO countries are America’s principal partners in promoting global security, but then goes on to observe that “continued instability in the Balkans and on the European periphery will continue to pose a security challenge.” Although written before Putin’s military moves in the Crimea, the strategy warns of the danger in Russia’s “actions that violate the sovereignty of its neighbors,” and states “We will engage Russia to increase transparency and reduce the risk of military miscalculation.”

Strategic partners. From its earliest days in office, the Obama Administration has emphasized the importance of working with regional allies and partners in pursuit of shared security goals. This is one reason why President Obama has been more open to foreign arms sales than many of his predecessors. The administration’s preference for multi-lateral action and coalitions has been on display in the Ukrainian crisis, and is made explicit in the new strategy. An internal Pentagon briefing states that even as the U.S. presence in Europe adapts to changing circumstances, the new strategy “provides assurance to Europe/NATO of continued commitment.” The same briefing says that the U.S. needs to “deepen cooperation with allies and partners to facilitate greater contributions — to their own defense, and across regions.” Events in Ukraine have underscored how crucial such cooperation is to discouraging aggression.

Power Projection. Like the Western Pacific and Persian Gulf, Ukraine is located far from American shores. If the U.S. military is to credibly deter aggression there without threatening the use of nuclear weapons (an approach the Eisenhower Administration tried with mixed results in the 1950s), then it must be able to deploy conventional firepower quickly to the region. The Pentagon’s new strategy supports this goal by insisting that the joint force have “unmatched ability to project power over great distances.” Despite being forced to cut investments in military technology by congressionally-imposed spending caps, the administration’s proposed 2015 defense budget protects vital power-projection capabilities such as a new long-range bomber, a new aerial-refueling tanker, and a new class of aircraft carriers. It also invests heavily in orbital and airborne reconnaissance systems needed to support the strategy.

Other tools. The Pentagon’s new strategy recognizes that when it comes to sustaining global security, the “military is only one tool” among many. Other departments of the government have non-military tools such as economic sanctions and diplomatic measures that may be better suited to defusing a particular crisis, or that are especially effective when used in combination with the threat of force. That looks to be the case in the Ukrainian crisis, where Washington is exploring a wide array of sanctions with allies aimed at discouraging further Russian adventurism. The new strategy thus transcends mere military calculation by grasping that each contingency is unique and the U.S. government needs lots of options besides killing people for securing its interests. Military options are an important backup to other tools, but the strategy recognizes that in places like Ukraine, their use may not make sense.

There are many other features of the Obama Administration’s evolved military strategy that potentially can be plugged into the Ukrainian crisis. The strategy is flexible enough and versatile enough to fit almost any imaginable situation, from cyber attacks to global pandemics. The real challenge the administration faces, as it acknowledges in the final pages of the Quadrennial Defense Review, is that Congress has denied it the fiscal resources and managerial flexibility to fully implement the strategy. It therefore pleads for partial relief from the strictures of the 2011 Budget Control Act which caps defense spending, and proposes changes to military benefits and the domestic basing system. Since the latter reforms are facing a wall of resistance on Capitol Hill, Congress ought to do the right thing and provide the additional funds above budget caps needed to carry out the strategy.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.